Appeal and Post-Disposition Proceedings

• Author: Anthony G. Amsterdam/Martin Guggenheim/Randy A. Hertz
• Profession: University Professor and Professor of Law at New York University/Fiorello LaGuardia Professor of Clinical Law at New York University School of Law/Professor of Clinical Law at NYU School of Law
• Pages: 831-841

831

CHAPTER 39

APPEAL AND POST-

DISPOSITION

PROCEEDINGS

§ 39.01 Scope of the Chapter

The M  is intended as an aid in representing alleged delinquents in the tr ial pro-

cess; post-disposition proceeding s are beyond its purview. The purpose of this chapter is

merely to identify the principal corrective procedures that are available to the respondent

following an unfavorable disposit ion (to obtain appellate or collateral review of the adju-

dication of delinquency; to modify or terminate a period of incarceration or to enforce

the respondent’s right to treatment while in the instit ution; to seal or expunge records

of the conviction after a certain period of time) and to sketch the natu re of the principal

proceedings that may be instituted against the respondent during the post-disposition

period (revocations of probation and parole and extensions of a term of incarceration).

§ 39.02 Appellate Review

§ 39.02(a) The Right to Appe al

Juvenile court statutes t ypically give the respondent a right to appeal an adjudication of

delinquency. See, e.g., Coo. Re. S. § 19-2-903(1) (2012); Id. Cod A. § 31-32-

15-1 (2012); Tx. Fm. Cod A. § 56.01 (2012). If a State allows appeals of criminal

convictions, a juvenile respondent who is not given a statutory right to appeal may be

able to contend that this disparate treatment violates the equal protection of the laws.

See, e.g., In re Brown, 439 F.2d 47 (3d Cir. 1971); In the Matter of Arthur N., 36 Cal. App.

3d 935, 112 Cal. Rptr. 89 (1974).

The scope of appellate review encompasses, generally, all properly preserved claims

of error in the pretrial and trial ru lings of the judge, “plain” or fundamental errors even

though not properly preserved, and the suf ficiency of the evidence to support a n adju-

dication of delinquency, within t he normal restrictions of appellate evidentiary review.

Following review by the highest court of a jurisdiction in which rev iew may be

had (or following the refusal of that cour t to review the case if its jurisdiction is discre-

tionary), see Costarelli v. Massachusett s, 421 U.S. 193 (1975), any federal issues preserved